Week 1. Development of Week 1. Development of Functional CategoriesFunctional Categories

GRS LX 865GRS LX 865Topics in Topics in

LinguisticsLinguistics

SyntaxSyntax Recall the basic Recall the basic

structure of adult structure of adult sentences.sentences.

IP (a.k.a. TP, INFLP, …) IP (a.k.a. TP, INFLP, …) is the position of modals is the position of modals and auxiliaries, also and auxiliaries, also assumed to be home of assumed to be home of tense and agreement.tense and agreement.

CP is where wh-words CP is where wh-words move and where I moves move and where I moves in subject-aux-inversionin subject-aux-inversion

Splitting the INFLSplitting the INFL Syntax since 1986 Syntax since 1986

has been more or has been more or less driven by the less driven by the principle “every principle “every separable separable functional element functional element belongs in its own belongs in its own phrase.”phrase.” Various syntactic Various syntactic

tests support these tests support these moves as well (cf. moves as well (cf. CAS LX 523).CAS LX 523).

Splitting the INFLSplitting the INFL Distinct syntactic Distinct syntactic

functions assigned to functions assigned to distinct distinct functional functional headsheads.. T: tense/modalityT: tense/modality AgrO: object agreement, AgrO: object agreement,

accusative caseaccusative case AgrS: subject agreement, AgrS: subject agreement,

nominative casenominative case Neg: negationNeg: negation

Origins: Pollock (1989) Origins: Pollock (1989) (split INFL into Agr and (split INFL into Agr and T), Chomsky (1993) (split T), Chomsky (1993) (split INFL into AgrS, T, AgrO).INFL into AgrS, T, AgrO).

Functional headsFunctional heads

The DP, CP, and The DP, CP, and VP all suffered a VP all suffered a similar fate.similar fate.

DP was split into DP was split into DP and NumPDP and NumP

Origin: Ritter 1991 Origin: Ritter 1991 and related workand related work

Functional headsFunctional heads VP was split into two VP was split into two

parts, vP where agents parts, vP where agents start, and VP where start, and VP where the patient starts. V the patient starts. V and v combine by head and v combine by head movement.movement. Origins: Larson (1988) Origins: Larson (1988)

proposed a similar proposed a similar structure for double-structure for double-object verbs, Hale & object verbs, Hale & Keyser (1993) proposed Keyser (1993) proposed something like this something like this structure, which was structure, which was adopted by Chomsky adopted by Chomsky (1993).(1993).

Functional headsFunctional heads

CP was split into CP was split into several “discourse-several “discourse-related” functional related” functional heads as well heads as well (topic, focus, force, (topic, focus, force, and “finiteness”).and “finiteness”).

Origins: Rizzi Origins: Rizzi (1997)(1997)

Functional structureFunctional structure Often, the “fine Often, the “fine

structure” of the structure” of the functional heads does functional heads does not matter, so people not matter, so people will still refer to “IP” will still refer to “IP” (with the (with the understanding that understanding that under a microscope it under a microscope it is probably AgrSP, TP, is probably AgrSP, TP, AgrOP, or even more AgrOP, or even more complex), “CP”, “DP”, complex), “CP”, “DP”, etc.etc.

The heart of The heart of “syntax” is really in “syntax” is really in the functional the functional headsheads, on this view. , on this view. Verbs and nouns Verbs and nouns give us the give us the lexical lexical contentcontent, but , but functional heads functional heads (TP, AgrSP, etc.) (TP, AgrSP, etc.) give us the give us the syntactic syntactic structurestructure..

How do kids get there?How do kids get there? Given the Given the

structure of structure of adult sentences, adult sentences, the question the question we’re concerned we’re concerned about here will about here will be in large part: be in large part: how do kids how do kids (consistently) (consistently) arrive at this arrive at this structure (when structure (when they become they become adults)?adults)?

Kids learn itKids learn it (patterns of input). (patterns of input). Chickens and eggs, and creoles, Chickens and eggs, and creoles,

and so forth.and so forth.

Kids start out assuming the Kids start out assuming the entire adult structure, learning entire adult structure, learning just the detailsjust the details (Does the verb (Does the verb move? How is tense move? How is tense pronounced?)pronounced?)

Kids start out assuming some Kids start out assuming some subpart of the adult structuresubpart of the adult structure, , complexity increasing with complexity increasing with development.development.

Testing for functional Testing for functional structurestructure

Trying to answer Trying to answer this question this question involves trying to involves trying to determine what determine what evidence we have evidence we have for these for these functional functional structures in child structures in child syntax.syntax.

It’s not very easy. It’s not very easy. It’s hard to ask It’s hard to ask judgments of kids, judgments of kids, and they often do and they often do unhelpful things like unhelpful things like repeat (or garble) repeat (or garble) things they just things they just heard (probably heard (probably telling us nothing telling us nothing about what their about what their grammar actually is).grammar actually is).

Testing for functional Testing for functional structurestructure

We do know We do know what various what various functional functional projections are projections are supposedsupposed to be to be responsible for, responsible for, and so we can and so we can look for look for evidence of evidence of their effects in their effects in child language.child language.

This isn’t foolproof. If a This isn’t foolproof. If a child fails to pronouns the child fails to pronouns the past tense suffix on a verb past tense suffix on a verb that was clearly intended that was clearly intended to be in the past, does this to be in the past, does this mean there’s no TP? Does mean there’s no TP? Does it mean they simply made it mean they simply made a speech error (as adults a speech error (as adults sometimes do)? Does it sometimes do)? Does it mean they haven’t figured mean they haven’t figured out how to pronounce the out how to pronounce the past tense affix yet?past tense affix yet?

Helpful clues kids give Helpful clues kids give usus

Null subjectsNull subjects Kids seem to drop Kids seem to drop

the subject off of the subject off of their sentences a their sentences a lot. More than lot. More than adults would. adults would. There’s a certain There’s a certain crosslinguistic crosslinguistic systematicity to it systematicity to it as well, from which as well, from which we might take hints we might take hints about kids’ about kids’ functional structure.functional structure.

Root infinitivesRoot infinitives Kids seem to use Kids seem to use

nonfinite forms of nonfinite forms of main (root) clause main (root) clause verbs where adults verbs where adults wouldn’t. Again, wouldn’t. Again, there’s a certain there’s a certain crosslinguistic crosslinguistic systematicity to it systematicity to it that can provide that can provide clues as to what’s clues as to what’s going on.going on.

Null subjectsNull subjects Lots of languages Lots of languages allowallow

you to drop the subject.you to drop the subject. ItalianItalian, , SpanishSpanish: the verb : the verb

generally carries enough generally carries enough inflection to identify the inflection to identify the person, number of the person, number of the subject.subject.

ChineseChinese: where the : where the subject is obvious from subject is obvious from context it can be left out.context it can be left out.

Not in English thoughNot in English though: : Let’s talk about Bill. Let’s talk about Bill. *Left. *Bought groceries. *Left. *Bought groceries. *Dropped eggs.*Dropped eggs.

On the view that kids On the view that kids know language, but are know language, but are just trying to figure out just trying to figure out the specific details the specific details ((principles and principles and parametersparameters), one ), one possibility is that they possibility is that they always start out always start out speaking speaking ItalianItalian (or (or ChineseChinese) until they get ) until they get evidence to the evidence to the contrary.contrary. (Hyams 1986 made a (Hyams 1986 made a

very influential proposal very influential proposal to this effect)to this effect)

Null subjectsNull subjects Kids do tend to speak Kids do tend to speak

in short sentences. in short sentences. There seem to in fact There seem to in fact be identifiable stages be identifiable stages in terms of the length in terms of the length of the kids’ sentences of the kids’ sentences ((one-word stageone-word stage, , two-two-word stageword stage, , multi-word multi-word stagestage…), often …), often measured in terms of measured in terms of MLUMLU (mean length of (mean length of utterance) which utterance) which roughly corresponds to roughly corresponds to linguistic development.linguistic development.

Perhaps the kid’s Perhaps the kid’s just trying to say a just trying to say a three-word sentence three-word sentence in a two-word in a two-word window, so window, so something has to go.something has to go.

That is, some kind of That is, some kind of processing processing limitationlimitation..

Subject vs. object dropSubject vs. object drop

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Adam Eve Sarah

Percentage of Missing subjects and Objects from Obligatory Contexts

SubjectsObjects

AA EE SS

SubjecSubjectt

5757 6161 4343

ObjectObject 88 77 1515

Null subjectsNull subjects Subjects (in a non-null Subjects (in a non-null

subject language like subject language like English) are English) are wayway more more likely to be dropped likely to be dropped than objects. There’s than objects. There’s something special something special about subjects.about subjects.

Makes a processing Makes a processing account more difficult account more difficult to justify.to justify.

Bloom (1990) made Bloom (1990) made some well-known some well-known proposals about how proposals about how the null subject the null subject phenomenon could be phenomenon could be seen as a processing seen as a processing issue, and tried to issue, and tried to explain why subjects explain why subjects are the most are the most susceptible to being susceptible to being dropped. See also dropped. See also Hyams & Wexler Hyams & Wexler (1993) for a reply.(1993) for a reply.

Null subjects vs. timeNull subjects vs. time

Null subjects seem to Null subjects seem to be pretty robustly be pretty robustly confined to a certain confined to a certain portion of linguistic portion of linguistic development. There’s a development. There’s a pretty sharp dropoff at pretty sharp dropoff at around 2 ½ or 3.around 2 ½ or 3.

Hamann’s Danish kids Hamann’s Danish kids illustrate this well.illustrate this well.

Why can’t English kids Why can’t English kids really be speaking really be speaking

Italian?Italian? In Italian, subjects can In Italian, subjects can be dropped (but be dropped (but need need notnot be), in English, they be), in English, they can’t be dropped at all.can’t be dropped at all.

So since So since having having subjects is consistent subjects is consistent with Italianwith Italian, what’s , what’s going to signal to the going to signal to the kid that they’ve got the kid that they’ve got the wrong kind of wrong kind of language?language?

A “subset” problem.A “subset” problem. Possible solution? Possible solution?

Expletive Expletive itit and and therethere..

In ItalianIn Italian, null subjects , null subjects are allowed wherever a are allowed wherever a subject pronoun would subject pronoun would be, including embedded be, including embedded finite clauses finite clauses (“I know (“I know that [he] has left”)that [he] has left”) and and finite root questions finite root questions (“What has [he] (“What has [he] bought?”)bought?”)..

In Kid EnglishIn Kid English, null , null subjects never show up subjects never show up in these environments. in these environments. It doesn’t seem so much It doesn’t seem so much like Italian.like Italian.

Optional/root infinitivesOptional/root infinitives Kids around the age Kids around the age

of 2 also of 2 also sometimes sometimes use infinitivesuse infinitives instead instead of finite verbs in their of finite verbs in their main clauses.main clauses.

It’s “It’s “optionaloptional” in that ” in that sometimes they get it sometimes they get it right (finite) and right (finite) and sometimes they get it sometimes they get it wrong (nonfinite), at wrong (nonfinite), at the same the same developmental stage.developmental stage.

French:French: Pas manger la poupéePas manger la poupée

not eat[inf] the dollnot eat[inf] the doll Michel dormirMichel dormir

Michel sleep[inf]Michel sleep[inf] German:German:

Zahne putzenZahne putzenteeth brush[inf]teeth brush[inf]

Thorstn das habenThorstn das habenThorsten that Thorsten that have[inf].have[inf].

Dutch:Dutch: Ik ook lezenIk ook lezen

I also read[inf.]I also read[inf.]

Root infinitivesRoot infinitives

English kids do this too, it turns out, English kids do this too, it turns out, but this wasn’t noticed for a long time.but this wasn’t noticed for a long time. It only write on the pad It only write on the pad (Eve 2;0)(Eve 2;0) He bite me He bite me (Sarah 2;9)(Sarah 2;9) Horse go Horse go (Adam 2;3)(Adam 2;3)

It It lookslooks like what’s happening is kids like what’s happening is kids are leaving off the are leaving off the -s-s..

Taking the crosslinguistic facts into Taking the crosslinguistic facts into account, we now think those are account, we now think those are nonfinite forms (i.e. nonfinite forms (i.e. to writeto write, , to biteto bite, , to to gogo).).

Root infinitives seem Root infinitives seem nonfinitenonfinite

Poeppel & Wexler (1993) looked at V2 in Poeppel & Wexler (1993) looked at V2 in German (where finite verbs should be in second German (where finite verbs should be in second position, nonfinite verbs should be at the end)position, nonfinite verbs should be at the end)

They concludedThey concluded: : the finiteness distinction is the finiteness distinction is made correctly at the earliest observable stage.made correctly at the earliest observable stage.

+finite -finite

V2, not final 197 6

V final, not V2 11 37

NS/OINS/OI Some languages appear not to undergo the Some languages appear not to undergo the

“optional infinitive” stage“optional infinitive” stage. Seems to . Seems to correlate (nearly? perfectly?) with the correlate (nearly? perfectly?) with the target language’s allowance of null subjects. target language’s allowance of null subjects. In principle, it would be nice to get this too, In principle, it would be nice to get this too, if it’s true. See, e.g., Wexler (1998).if it’s true. See, e.g., Wexler (1998). OI languages:OI languages: Germanic languages studied to Germanic languages studied to

date (Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, Icelandic, date (Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish), Irish, Russian, Brazilian Norwegian, Swedish), Irish, Russian, Brazilian Portuguese, CzechPortuguese, Czech

Non-OI languages:Non-OI languages: Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Tamil, PolishTamil, Polish

Root infinitives vs. timeRoot infinitives vs. time

The timing on root The timing on root infinitives is infinitives is likewise pretty likewise pretty robust, quitting robust, quitting around 3 years old. around 3 years old. Cf. null subjects.Cf. null subjects.

So what allows null So what allows null subjects?subjects?

Subjects of infinitives can be null.Subjects of infinitives can be null. Kids at the age where subjects are often Kids at the age where subjects are often

missing often use infinitive verb forms.missing often use infinitive verb forms.

Perhaps that’s the key: Perhaps that’s the key: Since kids can Since kids can use infinitives where adults can’t (main use infinitives where adults can’t (main clause main verb), this allows them to clause main verb), this allows them to use null subjects in those sentences as use null subjects in those sentences as a side effect.a side effect.

Proportion of null Proportion of null subjects in finite and subjects in finite and

non-finite clausesnon-finite clauses

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Flem GermSGermA FrP FrN DutchH EngA

null finitenull nonfinite

Null subjects and Null subjects and infinitivesinfinitives

Perhaps we’re on to something here.Perhaps we’re on to something here. So null subjects are (for the most part—not So null subjects are (for the most part—not

completelycompletely) allowed by virtue of having ) allowed by virtue of having infinitives.infinitives.

What allows the infinitives in child What allows the infinitives in child language?language?

Generally taken as some kind of Generally taken as some kind of “disturbance of IP” (e.g., TP is missing), “disturbance of IP” (e.g., TP is missing), home of both tense and the EPP.home of both tense and the EPP.

Null subjects and CNull subjects and C

Crisma (1992)Crisma (1992): French kids typically (1/114 : French kids typically (1/114 =1% vs. 407/1002=41%) do not produce null =1% vs. 407/1002=41%) do not produce null subjects with a subjects with a whwh-phrase.-phrase.

Valian (1991)Valian (1991): English kids typically : English kids typically (9/552=2%) do not produce null subjects with (9/552=2%) do not produce null subjects with a a whwh-phrase.-phrase.

Poeppel & Wexler (1993)Poeppel & Wexler (1993): German kids : German kids typically exclude null subjects from post-V2 typically exclude null subjects from post-V2 position.position.

Null subjects and CNull subjects and C

It looks like: It looks like: If the kid shows evidence of If the kid shows evidence of CP (CP (whwh-words, V2), then the kid also does -words, V2), then the kid also does not drop the subject.not drop the subject.

Rizzi’s idea (“truncation”):Rizzi’s idea (“truncation”): A discourse-licensed null subject is available A discourse-licensed null subject is available

only in the highest specifier in the tree (topic-only in the highest specifier in the tree (topic-drop).drop).

Axiom: Axiom: CP=rootCP=root Kids don’t “get” the axiom until between 2-3 Kids don’t “get” the axiom until between 2-3

years old.years old.

Truncated treesTruncated trees

The result (of not having The result (of not having CP=rootCP=root) is ) is that kids are allowed to have that kids are allowed to have truncated truncated structuresstructures—trees that look like adult —trees that look like adult trees with the tops chopped off.trees with the tops chopped off.

ImportantlyImportantly: The kids don’t just leave : The kids don’t just leave stuff out—they just stop the tree stuff out—they just stop the tree “early.” So, if the kid leaves out a “early.” So, if the kid leaves out a functional projection, s/he leaves out functional projection, s/he leaves out all all higherhigher XPs as well. XPs as well.

TruncationTruncation

If kid selects anything lower than TP as If kid selects anything lower than TP as the root, the result is a the root, the result is a root infinitiveroot infinitive——which can be as big as any kind of XP which can be as big as any kind of XP below TP in the structure.below TP in the structure.

Note in particular, though, it Note in particular, though, it can’tcan’t be a be a CP.CP.

So: we expect that evidence of CP will So: we expect that evidence of CP will correlate with finite verbs.correlate with finite verbs.

Truncation and null Truncation and null subjectssubjects

So, null subjects (are predicted to) occur…So, null subjects (are predicted to) occur… If the tree is just a VP (the subject can be If the tree is just a VP (the subject can be

omitted in its base position…it’s still in the omitted in its base position…it’s still in the specifier of the root).specifier of the root).

If the tree is just a TP (the subject can be If the tree is just a TP (the subject can be omitted from the normal subject position—note omitted from the normal subject position—note that this would be a that this would be a finitefinite verb with a null verb with a null subject).subject).

But not if the tree is a CP and SpecCP is filled But not if the tree is a CP and SpecCP is filled (like in a wh-question) we expect no null (like in a wh-question) we expect no null subjects.subjects.

““Optional tense”Optional tense”

Another view of child infinitives is based Another view of child infinitives is based on the idea that on the idea that just one functional just one functional projection is left offprojection is left off (rather than chopping (rather than chopping off the whole top of the tree).off the whole top of the tree).

Wexler (1994) proposed that kids can Wexler (1994) proposed that kids can leave off T. When they do, their clauses leave off T. When they do, their clauses behave in all respects like a non-finite behave in all respects like a non-finite clause (V2 and other V-movement, for clause (V2 and other V-movement, for example).example).

Subject case errorsSubject case errors

Various people have observed that Various people have observed that kids learning English sometimes will kids learning English sometimes will use accusative subjects.use accusative subjects.

It turns out that there’s a sort of a It turns out that there’s a sort of a correlation with the finiteness of the correlation with the finiteness of the verb as well. verb as well. Finite verbs go with Finite verbs go with nominative case, while nonfinite nominative case, while nonfinite verbs seem to go with either verbs seem to go with either nominative or accusative case.nominative or accusative case.

Finiteness vs. case errorsFiniteness vs. case errors

Schütze & Wexler (1996)Nina1;11-2;6

Loeb & Leonard (1991)7 representative kids2;11-3;4

subject Finite Nonfinite Finite Nonfinite

he+she 255 139 436 75

him+her 14 120 4 28

% non-Nom 5% 46% 0.9% 27%

What to make of the case What to make of the case errors?errors?

Case is assumed to be Case is assumed to be the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction of AgrSP and AgrOP.AgrSP and AgrOP.

So, nominative case So, nominative case can serve as an can serve as an unambiguous signal unambiguous signal that there is an that there is an AgrSP.AgrSP.

Accusative case, Accusative case, conversely, may conversely, may signal a missing signal a missing AgrSP.AgrSP.

Why are non-AgrSP Why are non-AgrSP subjects accusatives?subjects accusatives?

Probably a default Probably a default case in English:case in English: Who’s driving? Me. Me Who’s driving? Me. Me

too. It’s me.too. It’s me. Other languages seem Other languages seem

not to show this not to show this “accusative subject” “accusative subject” error but also seem to error but also seem to have a nominative have a nominative default (making an default (making an error undetectable).error undetectable).

““ATOM”ATOM” Schütze & Wexler Schütze & Wexler

propose a propose a mmodel of odel of this in which the this in which the case errors are a case errors are a result of being able result of being able to either to either oomit mit AAgrSP or grSP or TTense.ense.

For a subject to be For a subject to be in nominative case, in nominative case, AgrSP must be AgrSP must be therethere (TP’s (TP’s presence is presence is irrelevant).irrelevant).

For a finite verb, For a finite verb, both both TP and TP and AgrSP must be there.AgrSP must be there. English English inflection (3sg present –inflection (3sg present –ss) ) relies on both. relies on both. If one or the If one or the other is missing, we’ll see an other is missing, we’ll see an infinitiveinfinitive (i.e. bare stem). (i.e. bare stem).

Thus, predicted:Thus, predicted: finite finite (AgrSP+TP) verbs show Nom (AgrSP+TP) verbs show Nom (AgrSP), but only half of the (AgrSP), but only half of the nonfinite verbs (not both nonfinite verbs (not both AgrSP and TP) show Nom AgrSP and TP) show Nom (AgrSP). We should (AgrSP). We should notnot see see finite+Acc.finite+Acc.

Pronunciation of EnglishPronunciation of English T+AgrS(+V) is T+AgrS(+V) is

pronounced like:pronounced like:

/s//s/ if we have if we have features [3, sg, features [3, sg, present]present]

/ed//ed/ if we have the if we have the feature [past]feature [past]

ØØ otherwise otherwise

Layers of “default”, Layers of “default”, most specific first, most specific first, followed by next most followed by next most specific specific (“Distributed (“Distributed Morphology”, Halle & Morphology”, Halle & Marantz 1993)Marantz 1993)..

Notice: Notice: 3sg present 3sg present –s–s requires both TP and requires both TP and AgrSP, but past AgrSP, but past –ed–ed requires only TP (AgrSP requires only TP (AgrSP might be missing, so we might be missing, so we might expect some might expect some accusative subjects of accusative subjects of past tense verbs).past tense verbs).